CAA Video series

A short video series explaining CAA. I wanted to keep the videos less than 5 mins so that easy to view.

---

Rahul Prakash Deodhar, Advocate, Bombay High Court is also a private investor. He can be reached at rahuldeodhar@gmail.com, on twitter at @rahuldeodhar or at his website www.rahuldeodhar.com.

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms"

Citizenship Amendment Act

Even those living under a rock have heard about CAA – The Citizenship Amendment Act. 2019. They have heard vocal and emotional arguments, protest and all sorts of confusing messages. In general, Indian citizens have nothing to do with CAA. The question is therefore what about CAA has evoked the protests? Is the government really discriminating against Muslims? Is the government allowed to discriminate? What about Article 14 – equality before the law? Let us answer these legally and logically. 

How to get Indian citizenship?

Indian Citizenship Act allows for 5 categories of citizenship –

1. Citizenship at the time of independence, simply put, was given to all people living in undivided India who chose to remain in India.
2. Citizenship by birth is not that easy. From January 26, 1950, up to July 1, 1987 people born in India became citizens of India. Those born between July 2, 1987, but before December 3, 2004, became citizens only if either parent was a citizen of India. A person born on or after December 3, 2004, is a citizen only if both parents are citizens OR one is a citizen and other is not an illegal immigrant at the time of birth.
3. Citizenship by descent can be claimed by people born outside India. A person born outside India before December 10, 1992, can claim citizenship by descent, only if his father is an Indian citizen. If a person is born outside India, between December 10, 1992, and December 3, 2004, can claim citizenship if either parent is a citizen of India. After December 3, 2004, if you are born outside India, you can only claim citizenship by descent by registering at the Indian embassy/consulate.
4. Citizenship by registration is available to those people who qualify in the first 3 categories but are not Indian citizens because they are citizens of other countries. These people MUST renounce their citizenship before they become eligible to become Indian Citizens.
5. Citizenship by naturalization is a category open for everyone else provided they are not illegal immigrants or descendants of illegal immigrants. In other words, illegal immigrants or their children CANNOT ever become Indian Citizens after 2003. Even if illegal migrants marry an Indian citizen their children cannot become Indian citizens.
6. Citizenship by incorporation of a territory is when a state or country joins India, its citizens will automatically become citizens of India on the date of incorporation of the territory. These citizens do not have do clear any hurdles to acquire citizenship. This was primarily used for accession of princly states into India.

Is getting citizenship a right of non-citizens?

Simply put, only people born in India (category II) and people of Indian descent (Category III) but with restrictions described above have a RIGHT to be granted citizenship. They can demand to become citizens.

Others can apply for citizenship, whether to grant them or not is the discretion of the government. Citizenship by registration which applies to those born in India or are descendants of Indians but are not Indian citizens cannot claim a right to be given citizenship. Whether to give them citizenship is at the discretion of the government officials. The same is the case with citizenship by naturalization. Just because you lived in India for more than 12 years does not give you a right to be granted citizenship.

Illegal migrants, their children and even those children of illegal migrants whose spouse is an Indian, all, are specifically disqualified from getting citizenship.

Law relating to migrants and refugees

When it comes to migrants and refugees the laws applicable to them are derived from India’s commitment to the United Nations Charter of Human Rights read along with Indian laws (i.e. Constitution, Indian citizenship Act, Foreigners Act etc.).

In turn, UN Human Rights are centered around (1) Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live - Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/144 of 13 December 1985; (2) 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees along with 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and along with Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. These are also summarised in the 2006 publication of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights titled The Rights of Non-citizens.

In common language, legal migrants and refugees have a revocable right to residency. However, they have no right to get citizenship. Whether to give them citizenship or not is up to the government.

Are migrants entitled to Article 14 -equality before the law?

Many commentators have unequivocally stated that Article 14 applies to migrants as well. However, it is not a clear case. Based on a reading of all the documents, migrants are required to be treated equally before a court of law. They have some fundamental rights, chiefly right to life and property (subject to restrictions), etc. The UN High Commissioner’s publication mentions that State may discriminate for legitimate reasons and further allows states permits States to draw distinctions between citizens and non-citizens with respect to two categories of rights: political rights explicitly guaranteed to citizens (but not to migrants) and freedom of movement (not granted to illegal migrants).

Further, migrants, legal or illegal, cannot claim a right to be citizens. In fact, illegal migrants or refugees cannot become citizens of India. The Citizenship Act actively forbids them from becoming citizens.

Then what happens to illegal migrants?

There is no provision to give citizenship to any illegal migrant whatever be their religion. In fact, once you are established as an illegal migrant you are disqualified from getting citizenship. In fact, even if illegal migrant marries an Indian, s/he cannot be given citizenship. Their children can NEVER become citizens of India.

When the laws are read with UN HR resolutions and the Foreigners Act, India is required to deport illegal migrants to the country of their origin. They can also be deported to other countries provided they will be safe in those countries and that country is willing to accept them. Law allows for keeping illegal immigrants in detention centers or they may even be prosecuted in accordance with the Foreigners Act.

India can only deport all non-persecuted illegal migrants. Those facing persecution cannot be deported to their country of origin. All illegal migrants have a right that prevents the host government to deport them to a country where they will face persecution or abuse.

The net effect is that the persecuted illegal migrants cannot become citizens (because of the law) and cannot be deported. It implies that persecuted illegal migrants cannot be deported because of our commitment to UN human rights.

However, UN Human rights resolutions and Indian law require the government to deport illegal migrants who are not persecuted. Alternatively, they can be prosecuted under the Foreigners Act or detained.

In all these aspects the religion of the illegal immigrant is immaterial, Indian laws do not differentiate between illegal migrants based on religion.

Enter the CAA

The CAA grants a right to illegal migrants who are facing religious persecution only in 3 Islamic countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, to claim citizenship provided they have entered India before 2014. The act creates a right in favor of those who are persecuted that they may seek citizenship.

The act is a manifestation of promises made in 1947 to the minorities of undivided India. To be clear, the understanding was that Pakistan would give citizenship to persecuted Muslims of India and India will give citizenship to all persecuted minorities (at that time this group was primarily Sikhs, Jains, and Hindus – Christians were persecuted later).

Why not make minority migrants citizens under current law?

This question has to be answered in two parts.

For illegal migrants, before CAA, there is no provision in current law to give citizenship to them or their descendants from any community. If they are not persecuted, they have to be deported. If they are persecuted, they stay here as migrants. After CAA, only the persecuted illegal migrants from 3 countries who are already in India before 2014 get to apply for citizenship. Since they could not be granted citizenship, an act of parliament was required.

For legal migrants, all religions can apply. In this case, CAA merely lowers the bar for these migrants provided they are persecuted in their country of origin. This provision is simply like setting up a separate queue for wheelchair or persons with disabilities, mothers with infants etc. However, even this part, since it concerns citizenship could not have been done without an act of parliament.

Why not include Ahmadiyyas etc. who are facing persecution?

This is a complex issue and relates to all persecuted minorities - Ahmaddiyas, Baloch, Sindhis, Tibetians, etc. There are diverse categories of reasons for this, some arise from the legal aspect of partition itself, others are emotional, some are fundamental, some are practical. I am listing only the logical ones here. When you read the description below, you may not agree with a few and agree with others. But taken together, it is not possible to accept them.

First, at any point, in any country, a lot of classes of people claim to be persecuted. Landlords have been persecuted, landless have been persecuted, some are persecuted based on their sect, others because they support some political party etc. In the three countries, too many classes of people are facing persecution. Ahmadiyya, Tribals in Bangladesh, Baloch, Mohajirs, Sindhis, liberal Muslims in Taliban held areas, etc. are known to be persecuted. Only some of these are illegal immigrants. Can India accommodate all of them?

Second, legal recognition of persecution differs from actual persecution. If the law of other countries discriminates clearly then you can recognize it. However, if the law does not discriminate but provides for a remedy for any discrimination then another state cannot take cognizance of it even if in reality there is discrimination. Such recognition will become interfering in other countries' affairs. Thus, if Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan had not amended their constitutions to become theocratic Islamic states there would not have been a legal basis to enact this law. Even today, there is no legal justification to provide for Sri Lankan Hindus, Tibetans, or Rohingyas. If, however, China or Sri Lanka were to pass a law against Tibetan Buddhists or Sri Lankan Hindus, there will be an argument for seeking a CAA for accommodating these refugees.

Third, the law does not drive the persecution of many of these groups. These groups are persecuted DESPITE the protection of the law. However, non-Muslim migrants will have no such future possibility since the constitution of these countries does not protect these minorities. These religious minorities are therefore condemned BY their law - by their constitution itself.

Fourth, the basis of partition was not a referendum* but it was premised on separation of areas of population-based on religion. The partition was negotiated by Congress, Muslim League and the British, there were several ambiguities. However, there was one clear representation on which partition was founded – that Muslims do not identify themselves through sects and regions but only through religion and that is why they want separate land. The Ahmadiyyas, in particular, were instigators of partition and actively supported the partition of India and UN resolution on Kashmir against India. Similarly, Rohingyas were keen to separate from then Burma and join East Pakistan. This peculiarity prevents India from acknowledging separate sects including Ahmadiyyas (and further within Ahmaddiyas) within Pakistan, Bangladesh or Myanmar.

Fifth, giving citizenship to persecuted citizens under various classes within former undivided India opens pandora’s box. Will we give citizenship to Baloch? Sindhis? This has the potential to unravel the partition itself. In my opinion, if we get land along with the people, India should have no problem accepting these LEGAL migrants as citizens in the future.

Sixth, you have to also consider how many persecuted people exist illegally in India. As of now, there are no data on illegal Ahmaddiyas in India. Most Pakistani illegal migrants are Hindus and Sikhs. So the Ahmaddiyas in India are legal migrants and they have a regular mechanism to be assimilated into Indian citizenship.

Finally, you cannot promise citizenship in the future to any group of persecuted minorities coming in illegally in the future after 2014 - Ahmaddiyas or even Hindu, Sikh, Jain, etc. All of them including Hindus etc. will not be given citizenship. This is done so as not to encourage persecution of these minorities in their respective countries.

In Sum

The CAA is a mechanism to handle the status of part of the ILLEGAL immigrants. It refers to those illegal migrants (the minorities) who cannot be repatriated (UN laws) and are condemned to live in India forever. CAA makes these persecuted ILLEGAL migrants only from 3 countries into LEGAL persecuted migrants.

LEGAL migrants from all over the world can apply for Indian citizenship under category V. There is no restriction on religion – ALL religions and categories (LGBTQ, etc.) and can be granted citizenship. They have to wait for 11 years before they can apply. For LEGAL persecuted migrants from 3 countries CAA reduces the waiting time to only 5 years.

Thus, CAA has nothing to do with LEGAL migrants and ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Indian citizens. It also does not encourage illegal migration as a clear cut deadline (past deadline) means no future illegal migrants will be granted citizenship.

* The vote in favour of Muslim League was interpreted as a referendum. However, Muslim League and Jinnah himself were vocal about separate land. Also, Referendum was held in Sylhet and North-West Frontier Province. Both created enormous problems. But that is separate history lesson.

References:

• The Citizenship Act 1955
• The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003
• The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019
• The Foreigners Act 1946
• Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 40/144 on 13/12/1985
• The Rights of Non-Citizens published by Office Of the United Nations High Commissioner For Human Rights, 2006
• 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees – UNHCR
• 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees – UNHCR
• Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
•  Muslims of Burma – Moshe Yegar
• Sri Lankan Tamil Migration and Settlement: Time for Reconsideration
• About Burma: British conquest of Burma begain in 1824 with first Anglo-Burmese war. The conquest was complete in 1885 with exile of King Thibaw. Burmese province was responsibility of Government of India. With the Government of Burma Act 1935, separate Burma from India.
• Rohingyas and the unfinished business of partition
• The Misunderstood Roots of Burma's Rohingya Crisis
• Ahmadiyyas were at the forefront of creation of Pakistan, an Ahmadiyya Unit fought against India in Kashmir in 1947-48
• A Brief History of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community [ Refer to Advice for Muslims in India]
• Zaheeruddin v State [persecution of Ahmadiyyas]
• Hadi, Abdul. (2015). Injustice and Persecution: Forced Migration of Sindhi Hindus in Pakistan. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 6. 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2s5p11.]

[Updated with references]

---

Rahul Prakash Deodhar, Advocate, Bombay High Court is also a private investor. He can be reached at rahuldeodhar@gmail.com, on twitter at @rahuldeodhar or at his website www.rahuldeodhar.com.

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms"

Socialism or capitalism - Big government is a consequence, Small government an objective

Look at what they do NOT what they say!

Socialism or Capitalism - it is one of the central discussion points these days. Socialist too form a broad spectrum - from Bernie Sanders to AOC to Elizabeth Warren. The capitalist are not yet vocal but many are simply dismissive of the left-leaning neo-politics. But are there really left-right differences? Not too much. And I say that as I look at what they do NOT what they say.

Governments get bigger

The basic aim of government at the formation of Amercian revolution was twofold - Army formed protection force protecting citizens from outsiders AND legislation, police, courts system formed Law and Order for resolving disputes among citizens.

Gradually government came to provide diverse services - education, healthcare, insurance, subsidies, legislation and regulation of various industries. Each of these activities has grown in scale over the past 100 years. 

When you want government to take up more responsibility then you will end up with a big government. 

Big government = MORE TAXES

First objective of taxes is to pay for the government. In some countries the salary expenditures of government account for more than 50% of the total expenditure of the government. This is not counting the maintenance cost and other regular expenses government has to incur just to exist. = MORE TAXES.

Then all these people employed by the government have to do something. Even if they do nothing and just make presentations they consume a lot of money. That requires even more budgets = MORE TAXES.

To make it worse usually they add to procedure and impose cost on society. They prevent innovation. They make it their responsibility to say NO. That stops entrepreneurs before they can create value. It means MORE HIDDEN TAXES.

It all eventually leads to more taxes.

 

Big Government attracts big responsibility

People have started viewing government as a provider. Governments have encouraged that view. In effect whatever we want to get done, we want government to do it. We would like universal health care, you ask government. You want insurance for all - you ask government.

When governments become bigger, governance becomes difficult. Hence laws turn into fine prints, every step of industry is managed by dozens of legal clauses. Compliance becomes a cost.

Big government is a consequence - Small government is an objective

We need to prune governments regularly. On one level that means improving productivity of government servants. But on other level we need to reinvent our systems to be designed for less government.  But remember, no matter what they say, they will increase the size of government AND they will increase taxes AND they will default towards socialism.

To prevent it we must actively reinvent the system to stay on the money. We shall discuss how in subsequent posts.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

World War 3 Watch 04: Indian Defense Equipment strategy

India needs to up its defense game. India is dealing with potential conflicts on two fronts. On both these fronts we have belligerent neighbors engaged in asymmetric multi-dimensional confrontation. Pakistan is more of warfare and China is more of competition. Yet, India must prepare for the potential conflict. And in this we need to improve our preparation substantially.

Airforce

Just cursory look at the Air force in the region will set us back. Pakistan Air Force generally known combat strength is about 500 aircraft. China is about 1600 aircraft. India is about 600. While the numbers are not exactly a way to differentiate - but considering the length of border and our defense requirement India should aim for 2000 combat plane air force.

This means HAL cannot produce 16 aircraft per year. It has to produce 16 aircraft per month. Using private participation we need to improve this number quickly. Second, it appears we need full Rafale deal AND a F16 manufacturing line at the same time.

IAF should also think of getting larger number of combat drones. These drones should be able to manage to fly with manned aircraft. This one manned aircraft (M) -coupled with around 10 drones (D) or more. Thus one mission unit with M-D combination. Then you can add mission units with xM-yD.

These mission units will need to collaborate and coordinate with share intel. That will require a robust ICT interface.

Airforce needs support from ground and space in the form of missiles and information. We should develop mechanism for coordinated launch of missiles controlled by the aircraft pilot herself. We can augment it with coordinator based ground support too.

Army

The future soldier will be an augmented information soldier. 

We need to up our game in terms of equipping the soldier with top-class equipment. AK-203 is a step in the right direction. But we need to lighten the soldier and get every soldier a robo-buddy. The buddies could be in multiple form - carrier mules, terrain mapping drones, communication bots and combat drones (sniper buddy). For this we need very intense development in robotics and again the ICT component will also play a role.

We should experiment with augmenting the soldiers with exoskeletons and other techniques to improve battleground performance.

Air-cover has been neglected part of the army. Apache helicopters in air support is essential. 

Navy

Future of navy is stealth platforms. As the US stealth ship Zumwalt goes for a maiden mission, China is developing aircraft carrier buster missiles. The Chinese missiles are hyper-sonic and thus almost impossible to intercept. In this context any above surface ship will find it difficult to beat the defenses. Hence reliance of submarine platforms should be increased.

Sub-marine drone tech is actually quite interesting. It can be used on sink-and-forget  wait mode. Thus we should be able to plant and move around many depth assets on wait and watch basis. Without humans on board this is (a) easier and (b) safer. It also improves the counter-strike and defense capability. These drones should be easy to manufacture in large numbers and low cost. These drones need not be large they can simply be attachments to ammunition that can help the ammunition to navigate and activate.

Deep sea surveillance and AGAIN ICT is also going to be critical.

So Navy must develop platforms but also develop choking -technologies for anti-ship systems.

Space wars

Space is important front for information wars. The satellites form critical part of the ICT infrastructure we need to deploy across the forces.

Satellites should be able to perform twin functions - jamming enemy satellites and keeping ICT infrastructure working for our forces.

The ability to quickly and rapidly restore downed satellites is very important. We should also explore possibility of smaller satellites that can last only for 5/6 months and then disintegrate. The smaller the satellite the costlier it is to destroy. Also because of size, you can build for redundancy. It is also possible to launch 100 satellites in one launch. These satellites are more relevant for theater coverage rather than country coverage.

Cyber war

Most of modern warfare is quite destructive and hence preventive techniques are more important than remedial measures.Cyber war allows for information and processing delays in enemy retaliation and gives us additional time and information to respond better.

Many times it is better for cyber initiatives to operate in bleeding mode than in crippling mode. Thus, it is better for cyber initiatives to delay the enemy communication rather than cripple it. Thus introducing delays and errors is better than crippling the infrastructure for short time. These cyber initiatives can also provide advanced information about enemy maneuvers. The aim is to destroy combat assets of the enemy.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Indian Foreign Policy

Since last month's attack on Indian Security forces in Pulwama by the Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorist group, I have been thinking about the changes required in the national policy. Today we get the news that China once again blocked the proposal to declare Masood Azhar, the leader of JeM as a terrorist. In light of these developments here are some thoughts about Indian policy. 

Note: Many sound quite conflicting but that is the reality. I miss Narasimha Rao.

With Israel

India MUST announce a proper strategic deal with Israel including multi-faceted cooperation including defense, technology, agriculture, business, banking etc. 

We must improve integration with its defense network. A Multi-track developments must take precedence -

1. Designed in Israel, made in India, (avionics and defense info-tech subsystems)
2. Jointly designed and made by Israel and India,  (missile, interception & drone tech)
3. Designed in India and made for Israel - (aircraft and other equipment)
4. Joint Cyber warfare development cell.
5. We should have joint training - allowing Israeli forces to train in various conditions and set up training with them in Israel too.

We should aim for Agriculture and water management technology collaboration. We should explore policies that should allow Israel-India manufacturing companies to go global - compete across the world. We need to have 3 such companies be global brands like say ikea.


With Russia

India MUST announce a proper strategic defense deal with Russia as well. Russia is a long-term partner and we must improve the interaction with Russia. We must engage with Russians for heavy equipment - fighter aircraft, ships and submarine.  We should further the missile development cooperation and aim for joint technology development in defense space.

Economically, we have to help Russia ween itself from Chinese dependence. Russia should be able to stall and deny China without a huge economic cost.


With United States

That India and US are not friends is first the fault of India and then the fault of US. Unfortunately, today there a little bit of mistrust still left. 

India MUST have strategic partnership with US and must join the Quad.

1. This will include setting up bases
2. We must join the information sharing treaty with US
3. We must have/develop defense ICT that is interoperable one with US. 
4. We need cyber defense cooperation with Quad.
5. We need to step-up and take our responsibility in Indo-Pacific. 
6. We also need deeper collaboration and joint exercises between US and Indian defense forces.

With Japan

India must enhance partnership with Japan on following fronts:

1. Fighter aircraft development
2. Ship-building tech.
3. New Drone tech

 With Japan, India must set up ventures to develop infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. Japan has the capital and technology and India will need to give its man-power.


France
In general, it is not well-understood that France has been a long-standing defense ally of India since independence. More than Britain which somehow finds more sympathy than France. India and France need to improve the cooperation on defense as well as non-defense sectors.  We need to improve the status of France in the Indian economic and defense scheme.


South East Asia/ Asean / Asutralia New Zealand
We have to play very pro-active role in this region. We can work on the food side trying to reduce the cost of food and other goods in this part of the world.


About Pakistan
Pakistan will continue to remain an irritant unless we take proactive effort to eliminate the terrorist setup. It can be eliminated by imposing very high economic costs on the Pakistani Army. To this end, India needs to be part of Afghanistan solution. If US cedes Afghanistan to Taliban or to Pakistani Army backed group, we will soon have trouble on Indian soil.


Working in Middle East

India must UNDERSTAND and ACT on the fact that we are Hindu majority country AND we are the largest democracy of Muslim at once. India must use this to influence a lot of things in the Islamic sphere and give it a better direction. We must champion the reforms taken up by other middle eastern countries and overcome the regressive developments taking place. 

Africa

India should be able to collaborate with Africa much better than any other country. We should provide the institutional support and help African companies develop as suppliers to India. Japan and other countries will surely help us in this process. We have to showcase a credible alternative to Belt and Road but with good clean reformist credentials.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Interesting Readings May 14 2018 - Development Finance Institutions.

Financing reindustrialization: bring back development banks

Deepak Nayyer talks about capabilities created in Development Financial institutions (DFIs) for longterm lending. 

These DFIs are very important in creating a capability for lending to special investments. India, till 2000, had developed the capabilities to lend to infrastructure, sector-wise capacity creation etc. We need the concentration of skills in one place. This way, special knowledge reduced the risk for lending.

The commercial banks decided to reduce the lending risks by consortium lending. That is a statistical approach to risk mitigation.

Now Deepak Nayyar wants to create a National Development Bank. That I think is a bad idea. Though there may be some merit in creating a network of professionals who can lend to industry and towards infrastructure. These professionals can be monitored using DIN-like number (Director identification number) and their investments performance tracked. These people may be employed with commercial banks but without sign-off from these persons, such loans will not be approved.

Note:

What we are creating is attribution chain. I have discussed the importance of attribution in both of my books - Subverting Capitalism and Democracy and Understanding Firms. Please use the links below to check out the books. 

---

 Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Why does Lloyd Blankfein's interview with Fareed Zakaria sounds weird to me?

Fareed Zakaria interviewed Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, for his GPS program. Here is the video. There are so many weird things with this one. But I came away ith a feeling that if Elizabeth Warren were to cross-examine him in Court, Lloyd Blankfein would be toast. But first watch this (transcript of full show here):

The interview basically talks about few key concepts:

1. State of the Economy
2. Accountability of top management of Banks - context of Wells Fargo scam.
3. Closeness with Clintons
4. Why wouldn't Hillary Clinton release the transcripts of the talks at Goldman Sachs

I found many weird things. Let us look at the interview in detail (highlights and in-quote comments are all mine).

I start from first question leaving hi's and hello's out.

ZAKARIA: From your vantage point, what does the economy look like? You know, how strong is growth? Because it still seems steady but tepid. 

BLANKFEIN: Well, it feels steady but tepid. But that being said, it is steady and there are a lot of advantages that the U.S. economy has. So for example, the consumer has deleveraged banks -- the banking system is in excellent shape. If you look at energy, there's a lot of tailwind in the U.S. economy and the fact of the matter is, we went through a big trauma, which included a banking system trauma and it took a while to work itself through. So the answer is, it's tepid but we're definitely growing and it's established, and the latter point is the more significant point. 

This is the first question. Nothing special here. Though as a CEO of Goldman Sachs I would have expected Blankfein to be sharper about his analysis. Instead he comes across as pedestrian.

"Banking is in excellent shape" is the wrong thing to say if you ask me, particularly in the world which wants your head. He could have said Banks are in much better position to support entrepreneurial activity - small businesses and the like, than the time just after the crisis. That will kickstart recovery.

Look at this first part:

ZAKARIA: A lot of people say, though, there's a lot of economic anxiety. People don't feel like these numbers are right, that unemployment is down, but at the same time, you know -- so for some reason, they remain as great sense of economic anxiety, what do you attribute that to? 

BLANKFEIN: Well, I'd say, there's economic anxiety but I'd say there's a more generalize anxiety and a very negative sentiment and I think it's fed and feeds into the political cycle. I have trouble explaining. If you look at the metrics, you talk about unemployment -- unemployment is not just down, we're virtually at full employment.   

Now, you'd say that there's some degree of underemployment or wage (earning) that was always the case. 

I'm not minimizing the consequence to people who should have -- who feel their jobs should be higher paid and legitimately so, and the legitimate issues about minimum wages, but at the end of the day, these problems always existed to some extent. They're less -- people should feel better than they may actually do. I'm not saying they should feel good or there aren't challenges to try to surmount or other objectives to strife for. But the sentiment is a lot worse than the economy.  [Mr. Blankfein, you just trivialized the problems facing normal people across the world who have never felt this way before]

If you knew all the numbers and you are teleported here from two years ago or three years ago and you're told where employment was, where the price of energy was. What the federal deficit was looking like is a percentage of GDP, the strength of the consumer, a lot of other metrics and you heard that. You would think that sentiment would be a lot better than it is today. 

Blankfein sounds like he meant people should stop whining. They are whining for no reason. The people are unhappy because their jobs (a) don't pay them as much as they think they deserve, (b) their jobs cannot be counted on as stable for forseable future, (c) they do not see Government or policy makers doing anything to help the situation AND more importantly (d) they see policy makers going to great lengths in aiding bankers to create more profit through dubious policies when they don't seem to need any help. In this context, Blankfein comes across very insensitive.

Under-employment was always the case? Really? Not correct! It is one thing to argue that the wages were unreasonably high and they have come to normal or that there was over-employment and now it has reverted to mean. But this plain denial. 

To how many did the comment "and I think it's fed and feeds into the political cycle" sounded like he started to blame the US FED and then turned it elsewhere? It did to me. I know it is sly to infer that. But if he wanted to say "anxiety is fed by the political cycle and also feeds the political cycle" then he should have been more clearer. He is CEO of Goldman Sachs, you should speak deliberately and precisely, and more so when you speak to the media. Didn't he get media training? He can't give excuses.

We continue:

ZAKARIA: The one thing that people are sure of still is that they are suspicious of the banks. If you listen to Donald Trump, you know, he varies on lots of different things but the one consistent thing he keeps hitting is that the banks are bad, that they're in cahoots, that they're -- you know, the big banks are part of the group of things he attacks, big media, big government, you know, the Clinton machine, the banks and he always gets wild cheers.   

BLANKFEIN: Well, I think you're being generous. I think it's not suspicious, it's outright accusations and it's not just Donald Trump, you know, frankly. I mean, I don't like telling -- I don't like the fact that I don't like saying it to you but, you know, we're not -- at times, people think of us as, you know, bankers is tone deaf. Believe me, I read the papers everyday and I hear it.  [what are you so stressed about? There is nothing you can't like telling the media that they are unfairly targetted]

Look, variety of reasons. Let me just start out. One of which is, I think, some of the behaviors that have been, you know, highlighted and visited, you know, are real and justify some negative response. And then, other parts of it are just a general -- and I don't want to minimize it so let me pause for a second and say, there has been -- bankers have played an important role in the system, generally, get rewarded for the risks they take. And some of those risks were poorly managed and some of the behaviors were not, you know, recorded as bad behavior. And so, there's a legitimate reaction to that, full stop.
[Ok, Good! That is true - good to admit it.]

Other things also -- let me tell you, bankers are no better at predicting the future than anybody else. And most of what we do are trying to get the future right, trying to make good decisions of how to allocate capital, trying to lend money to people who pay you back, trying to finance winners and not finance losers and guess what, you don't always get it right and you get drawn into the same mistakes and the same confusion that anybody would and everybody does in connection with their efforts to try to figure out what the future is going to be. [This has been debunked, ridiculed so many times cannot believe Blankfein is using this defence.]

So, good to have Blankfein admit that there are bad apples. These bad apples should be punished heavily - in accordance with law. That is where a leader would take it. Blankfein could also say because it is such a complex system ascribing blame is very difficult and it takes time. But Banks don't want bad apples in their system as much as the general public does. 

But then for weird reason, he starts defending bad behaviour. I doubt people think the "bad apples" Blankfein referred to were only people making mistakes. People know you are talking of the cheats. People simply want you to say "we are finding the cheats and sending them to jail". To the lawyer in me, this volunteering of information looks suspicious.

ZAKARIA: One of the criticisms people make about the banks which is playing itself out with this Wells Fargo affair is banks make mistakes. They do bad things. They do things they shouldn't have done and they pay fines in a sense admitting the wrongdoing, whether or not technically they do but nobody at the top gets held accountable. Goldman Sachs has paid fines. Do you think that's a fair criticism? 

BLANKFEIN: I would -- well, let me just say, first of all, I can't own or comment on Wells Fargo situation, you know, I could apply it in abstract. Everyone is looking for someone to hold accountable but sometimes -- the answer is -- look, the short answer is you would like to ascribe malevolence to everything that goes wrong. 

Now there is bad behavior. Someone has cheated or this fraud, well, that's the remedies for that and people go to jail for that. [Para added by me] 

But sometimes, people are just wrong. And they're wrong about things within their area of expertise because I may be in finance and you may be a political scientist but I have views about political science and I may be right, you may have views about where the financial markets are going, you may be right. You just don't know.  

And sometimes, what's going on here is that people are trying to prescribe malevolence for people who were wrong and the evidence that they were simply wrong is look how much money they lost. And at the end of the day, if you still think that their behavior was off, to be punished the way people are saying they should be punished, you still have to find some kind of a criminal intent. 

You know, to this day maybe the law shouldn't be this way. But stupidity is not a crime. Sometimes it's even a defense because if you're merely wrong and you didn't get it right, it's hard to ascribe criminality.

ZAKARIA: But some of the cases -- and again, I know you can't comment about Wells Fargo particularly but there are some cases where it wasn't just being wrong. 

BLANKFEIN: Sure. If there's bad behavior, then bad behavior should be punished. Look, there was nothing -- it was not criminality but there were civil wrongs in Goldman Sachs which we, you know, paid fines with respect to which we paid fines. And so that punishment -- but you're asking something different. You're asking -- 

ZAKARIA: I'm saying that the public sentiment seems to be and you see in the words of Elizabeth Warren which is why the people at the top not held accountable.  

BLANKFEIN: Well, I think people should be held accountable for what they're responsible for. In other words, if somebody has a duty and they didn't fulfill their duty, well, that's a civil wrong.  [Legally correct - but wrong context]

You can fine somebody. The idea, going further and saying there should be criminality, you still have to -- you still have to commit a crime to be a criminal. And to commit a crime, you still have to have some level of intent for what you're doing. So we're talking very abstractly here.  [Legally very smart]

And so I'm not saying look, I'm a citizen, also. Any time there's some malfeasance, I would love to see a head roll, but you have to -- can't -- but once the head starts to roll, it's no longer an abstraction for the person whose shoulders it was on. They have to really have -- there has to be a crime. [Para added here] 

And I -- listen, we were investigated. The people who investigated us, and others, presumably, you know, we were very, very -- a subject of a lot of focus. I would have to say that people looked at a lot of behaviors. And if there was no -- and I'm not talking about myself in particular; [Why did Blankfein want to add this disclaimer] I'm talking about the group -- and the outcome was, was there were people who -- who -- people in the community of people who -- in the enforcement community -- were not going easy. If they failed to bring a case, they felt that there was no case.

This is the part that stumped me. First Blankfein would have done well if he was legal expert. For someone who could't explain why growth is tepid or there is economic anxiety, he breezes through the legal minefield with remarkable ease. He could put a lawyer to shame with his precision. Yes, Mr. Blankfein, people make mistakes and no one in America is against mistakes. 

"People are prescribing malevolence for people" this statement is so ambiguous that it could be a a part of a master confession. It can leave the jury in the "did he or didn't he" zone. Let me clarify what people think. When people see toddler using a semi-automatic gun and kill 20 people, they don't blame the toddler, they blame the parents and the pro-gun lobbies blame the gun manufacturers. So when a whale trader makes $1billion wrong bets, they blame his supervisors and may not necessarily blame him. This is not negligence but criminal negligence and repurcussions are dire - jail. This is not a civil liability but a criminal one. And frankly US Justice Department has dropped the investigations of criminal liability for civil penalties. That looks dubious to people.

Blankfein uses the stupidity argument without being provoked. My ears pricked up when he volunteered that one.

What Blankfein is saying is, in law, called the difference between misfeasance and malfeasance. Misfeasance means a mistake, trying to do the right / acceptable thing but making a mistake leading to a loss. Malfeasance is trying to do the wrong / unacceptable thing and doing it well. Now it may so be that your law and your work are such that they look awfully similar. That is, a mistake while doing normal thing and well-executed bad /wrong thing looks the same. The question then is how to determine which is which. 

Or, it could be so that banks may be trying to do something bad/unacceptable AND made mistake  and thus blew up the system. In this case the liability is not only criminal but also vicarious - i.e. Firm is also liable. The behaviour of Justice Department let the banks off the hook on this major issue. Clearly, banks were doing something unacceptable - Goldman's internal emails themselves said that in so many words while shorting the derivatives.

The thing is if bad behaviour is being displayed repeatedly, you benefit from bad behaviour (get a bonus) when it doesn't explode into a crisis then you are part of the system when it does explode. So you go to jail along with the perp as a co-accused. Now imagine a series of mistakes leading all the way to the top, taking place repeatedly and all those making mistakes are getting rewarded . This is a conspiracy - the burden of proof shifts from prosecution to the accused. How many times will Blankfein say he made a mistake. At the end it will appear he was only making mistakes at Goldman Sachs - wonder why he kept getting all those bonuses.

ZAKARIA: I have to ask you about the relationship of Goldman Sachs to the Clintons. There was a front-page story in the New York Times alleging that there are very close connections, that Goldman Sachs has done all kinds of things, from give money to the Clinton Global Initiative to creating a partnership between the -- your foundation and the State Department when Hillary Clinton was in office, to, of course, holding fund-raisers for both Clintons at various points. 

How do you respond to that charge?  

BLANKFEIN: Well, Hillary Clinton was the -- was our -- was a New York senator. [Trying to avoid the usage of the word "our" ;)] We're largely a -- well, we're certainly a New York- headquartered firm. The -- when -- when Bill Clinton was in office, obviously, he was the president of the United States -- we're one of the larger banks; we have influence in the financial system; of course we engage. We engage with Senator Schumer. We engage with Governor Cuomo.  

I don't know how to -- we could have -- I know that, you know, in the conspiracy world -- theory-driven world in which we live in, you connect data points, but, heck, [hmm?] I have -- I go out and I meet with editors of newspapers. I meet with Republicans, leaders. I -- we -- it's necessary for us to do that. Part of what we do is -- part of our role requires not just that we're committed to [the word Blanfein used was "permitted" to not "committed to]-- our sense of duty requires that we explain the financial system and the ramifications of what official action would be. And of course we engage our political leaders.  [Finally he found the right angle to give the meeetings]

ZAKARIA: But the implication is that there was a tighter connection. Do you -- do you... 

BLANKFEIN: Well, I'll give you -- I'll give you an example of a tighter part of a connection. In the '08 political cycle, I held a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. And I could tell you, throughout our firm and other firms, so did a lot of people and so did a lot of people in our firm hold fund-raisers for people running against her. We had no -- I mean, you can -- you can go on and trace it. [No need to trace it but it would have been better to state this upfront] But, listen, if the fact is that we're identified with Hillary Clinton, who, as we say this, you know, the election is coming up and I'm sure this will -- this conversation will survive that moment, but as we sit here now, we don't know who will win the election. But it looks like the odds are favored Hillary Clinton. If the worst thing was that we had a history of having engaged positively with Hillary Clinton, that's not going to annoy me. [Fair point]

ZAKARIA: But do you personally support and admire Hillary Clinton?  

BLANKFEIN: Well, I've -- I'm supportive of Hillary Clinton, and I certainly -- yes, I do -- yes. So, flat out, yes. I do. That doesn't say that I agree with all her policies. I don't. And that doesn't say that I adopt everything that she's done in her political career or has suggested that she might do going forward. [Fair point]

But in terms of, you know, her intelligence, her, I think, her positioning not only in terms of her ideology but what I regard as a certain -- as a pragmatism that I saw demonstrated when she was our senator and in earlier stages of her political career, when she could cross the aisle and engage other people to get things done, I admire that, and it stands out a little today because it's a little -- because it's a little -- that kind of -- that kind of willingness to engage and compromise -- but let's just stop at engage -- that willingness to engage is a scarcer commodity these days. [Again a fair point]

This was a rather innocuous topic. The way Blankfein answers raises suspicion rather than questions themselves. The way to answer it was first admit there is a connection. Personally, raising funds and so forth, then talk about regular interaction with politicians to put forth our understanding of financial system and so on. Blankfein answers weirdly. I felt he was trying to avoid using the word "our" senator - when referring to Hillary. Why? I wonder.

I was surprised by his use of word "permitted". Clearly Fareed did not imply that he cannot meet Clinton. And Fareed probed rightly. So then comes the issue that Blankfein personally held fund-raiser for Hillary. Fareed says both but Blankfein admits only Hillary. Now if I was asked - this relationship would be the first thing to disclose. Also ties between Goldman (the firm) and the Clintons. Blankfein avoided the question on the Clinton foundation and his own foundation.

By the end though he is comfortable talking about general stuff - why I support Hillary and general stuff like that.

ZAKARIA: Why won't she release the transcripts? 

BLANKFEIN: OK, well, you'll have to ask her -- you have to ask her that. I would say -- and the answer is I don't know. [Why so defensive] 

But if it were me in her position, I would have wanted to reveal -- I'm not sure what she's afraid -- you know, these transcripts were her -- somebody who had left office as secretary of state giving a tour of her impressions of the world. They weren't given to Goldman Sachs -- you know, the press talks about Goldman Sachs partners. She spoke at our client meetings. These were meetings with -- with hundreds of people. Believe me, she was not saying -- I didn't think she was saying anything untoward. I don't recall specifically. [Again a hedge - hmm] But nothing that she said would have jarred me that she was going into some impermissible or revealing some secrets. I don't know what secrets she would have had about the financial market that she could have revealed.  [So myopic is Blankfein, doesn't think Hillary may be more smart than he understands]

ZAKARIA: There's a poll out, I think, a couple of months ago. Sixty percent of Americans worry that Hillary Clinton would not be able to properly regulate the financial industry because of her ties to it. What do you say?  

BLANKFEIN: You know, I don't know how to -- I don't know how to -- I'm not sure how to respond to that. People say that. I would say that the financial system today is so much more tightly regulated. The regulators in their seats are so vigilant and so tough and their reputations depend on that toughness. Everyone is -- it's not a place where everybody is disarmed; everybody is armed. And the consequences of any kind of breach are so severe, I think -- I think we've -- I think we've handled that aspect of it. [This is a repeated many times by bankers]

I think -- look at the, you know, it's something I -- you know, frankly, I'm scared to death of mistakes that are made in my organization, and guess what? The world wants me to be scared to death of that and they want me to be vigilant at the end of the day. And they've accomplished their purpose. They have me on edge all the time. [So you weren't vigilant? Weren't scared? And if you have confidence in your risk management systems then why should you be scared?]

My biggest -- I am not -- I don't live in fear that I'll do something wrong. I know I won't. Of course, there are accidents can happen, but I know I'll never do something wrong intentionally. [Again hedging himself] I live in fear that one of my tens of thousands of employees -- and for other people who run big companies, it's hundreds of thousands of employees -- will do something wrong and their bad behavior will be ascribed to me, not simply because I failed to supervise, but in this current milieu, it will be ascribed to me as if I intended that act that was accomplished by somebody in the organization, or even if it's multiple people in the organizations. 

And that's a very -- that's a very hot -- we're talking about an anxious economy. Guess what? You have an anxious industry. And guess -- you know, and I'll say, go further, I'm sure that people are happy that it's that way. [Interesting victim's position he is taking]

These were fairly innocuous questions to which parrotted answers were expected. But Blankfein is unbelievably circumspect. In the entire interview the tone of Fareed Zakaria is quite neutral. Fareed doesn't seem to incite anything. Yet, voluntarily Blankfein is quite shaken up. Why? So if this is the case now, imagine what will happen if Blankfein were to be interrogated (i.e. cross examined) in Court by Elizaebth Warren. She will roast him alive. No before the senate/congress because there he is not obliged to share everything. But in court where adverse inference can be drawn.

I thought for CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein did not look one bit of the industry captain he should have been. He looked like a normal trader opining on various things. This opinion I deduce from watching John Mack, CEO Morgan Stanley, in the teeth of the crisis, or Jamie Dimon during his various media interviews since the crisis. He sounds more like a lawyer - which itself makes me suspicious.

Time and again words of Peggy Noonan - protected and unprotected ring in my mind. These people do not have any sense of ground reality. That is both sad and catastrophic.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Capitalism V Democracy - Yanis Varoufakis

Yesterday, I saw the TED talk by Yanis Varoufakis (linked below) titled Capitalism will eat democracy: unless we speak up. It is quite a watch so I embed it here.

His suggestion is that we have to choose between a Matrix like dystopia v/s a Star Trek like utopia. The primary observation is that unbridled capitalism will ensure that the democracy works for the super rich but not for the poor. I agree with him as an assessment of the present state of affairs. But that does not cover the issue fully.

Capitalism can eat democracy but what about the reverse?
While it is true that democracy cannot eat up capitalism, politicians can. We have it happening right now - in India, China, Russia etc. These politicians become businessmen and plunder the country. This is no true politics but predatory politics can impair the la and order machinery to quickly discend into anarchy.

Crony capitalism v servile democracy v servile capitalism
Crony capitalism is a misnomer. A crony means friend - sort of an equal. But this is not a relationship between equals.

The government officers and politicians are eager to serve the capitalist. When chairman or office bearers of NRA speak they listen - not both sides listen but enough people on both sides listen. If Zuckerberg or Paige or Dimon or Buffet were to say something both parties will listen. I read somewhere that 80% of 2013 US presidential election funding was made by 150 odd individuals. Please tell me their views carry the same weight as mine. This is servile democracy. Yanis Varoufakis talked about Larry Summers (in other talk in Austin) telling him that if he becomes an insider then he will be given magical things. That is servile democracy not crony capitalism. This is a rich man trying to train a dog with dog biscuits.

There is other side to this too. In India businessmen are servile and politicians are the lord-masters. Things have changed - but not too much. It is easy to scuttle a truly new challenger to established business houses. If you take the paper spending on infrastruture - India can have better infrastructure than the very best countries in Europe - may be twice over. This is servile capitalism. There are whole networks that have come up around these politicians to create extortionist "business models".

Where will the fight between capitalism and democracy lead us is anybody's guess! But one thing is clear.

Capitalism and Democracy as competing systems

Capitalism and democracy are said to be collaborating or complementing systems. But we should start thinking of capitalism (more specifically markets) and democracy (specifically government) as both competing and complementing systems together. They both allow the masses to exercise their opinions. Marktes allows the individual to exercise it through buying i.e. through markets, democracy allows him to exercise it by voting in a government.

Now buying is something we do almost every day. Thus, we this part of the system is more evolved, sensitive. This system is also keenly improving itself to make sure the customer preferences are communicated to the top - it is thus more efficient than the political system. But let us remember they can be inefficient too.

The political system works like a broken market system. Here the opinion or choice of majority is forced on everyone. Imagine if markets worked like democracy - everyone may be forced to wear XXL size blue man shirt (coz majority favours it). 

By now you must think that they operate in different spheres and so it is not a problem. But it is! Notice that the burden on government to make itself more palatable to all of its citizens not just the majority is quite high. It is higher than the burden on market to service all types of demand. That is because there is an alternative when market fails to understand the opinion of minority - some niche player can fill it. In case of government - there is no niche player alternative. Therefore, Government must be held accountable more than the capitalist. And it must uphold the rule of lawso as to ensure capitalism is working smoothly.

Just think - marxism is actually a response to servile politics impairing the demands of working class (the proletarait) by the capitalist (bourgeoisie) who were friends of politicians/rulers. Then the Soveit collapse was actually a response to the politicians exploiting the political system to their economic advantage. In some way reverse of the first wave.

So the point is...

We need a mechanism to ensure the bargaining power between capitalism and democracy is maintained. Without such a mechanism we may end up in some trap or the other.

---

The ideas expressed in this post first appeared in my book  Subverting Capitalism and Democracy. Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms". 

Make or break elections in India

As the election nears, the political discourse has become shrill, divisive, rhetorical but seldom, if at all, insightful. From the economy and markets perspective, there was never a turning point as pronounced as this. 

The market favours Narendra Modi, BJP’s prime ministerial candidate. However, the electoral numbers present a challenge. The BJP is strong in North and West, marginal in East and almost absent in the South. As per recent opinion polls, North and West are firmly backing BJP. The East will be crucial test for BJP’s party machinery while South will depend upon alliances. 

At the same time, opponents are getting their act together. Aam Admi Party despite its ludicrous politics, enjoys continued support amongst its followers. If not anything AAP may limit BJP’s seat share below the 180 mark. Congress may gain from its many populist gifts to rural India in the past decade. Congress is a shrewd tactician at election games and can still ratchet up 150+ seats simply because of it truly national presence. The third front is realigning itself to increase the bargaining power at the time of government formation. The lack of coherent leadership within third front makes it a target for alliances and partnerships, legitimate or otherwise. 

A rational result hints at BJP winning 190-200 seats. This number was adequate to run stable coalitions in the past. However, Modi’s polarized image may present a problem and a lot will depend on tally of other parties. If Congress wins 150+ seats, there is a reasonable possibility that BJP may be sitting in opposition even after winning 180 seats. BJP needs at least 230-240 seats to decisively win the mandate.

From market’s perspective, there are three likely outcomes of this national election – a coalition led by strong BJP, a coalition led by weak BJP and a indecisive-mandate.

The first case will allow Modi to implement a model of economic reform he has articulated. It is a big challenge as there is little time to address the breadth of issues facing the economy. In case of a weak BJP-led coalition, things will become uncertain. We must realize that the national mood is pro-Modi and not exactly pro-BJP, and BJP continues to be riddled with its old problems even today. In a weak coalition Modi-detractors may not allow a broad-based economic reform. This situation will test the political ability of Modi to maintain stability, something Vajpayee achieved with help of Brijesh Mishra.

However, in case the electorate throws up an indecivisive-mandate, we are positively doomed. Our present predicament leaves less room for experimentation or populist adventurism. It will result in a lost decade and some of the damage caused may leave deep scars. A lack of coherent policy may make low growth endemic and entrench our structural problems.

There is hardly any margin of error this time but then Indian voter has demonstrated surprising political maturity in the past. So let us hope for sanity.

---

Buy my books "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" and "Understanding Firms".

Free download: Subverting Capitalism and Democracy

My first book Subverting Capitalism and Democracy is available free (kindle edition) on Amazon. Click and download and tell me what do you think. (Free only till Sunday July 22)

You can also buy my next book "Understanding Firms - A Manager's model of the Firm.

Update: It is no longer free but you can email me so I can intimate you when next promotion starts.

Explaining Indian Policy Paralysis

A lot of recent comments, including mine, have pointed out the lack of policy commitment from the government. I believe there is a reason to this policy logjam and it may reverse quite quickly, to surprise of many, making the current time most critical time to invest in the country. To warn this is a conjecture.

1. Indian politics has undergone a change of mechanism in financing. A significant (non-trivial) percentage of money deployed in politics comes from stock markets where it remains invested in distributed accounts. 
2. This implies that the stock markets must have a good peak about a year before the election. Year being the approximate time required to oil the election machinery of the political parties.
3. This also implies that there should be a good opportunity to invest around 2 years before the election without which the peak referred above will have no meaning. 
4. Political money is gained from rent-seeking and corruption and not invested in first three years as it is being collected at that time. It is usually available around 2 years after new government takes office, the bulk being available around 3 years time. (term of government = 5 years in India)
5. Insiders inform me that Late Mr. Pramod Mahajan (parliamentarian of BJP) was amongst the pioneers of such strategy around 2002-03. Subsequently ruling party Congress, inducted relevant talent into this strategy. Some say, former finance minister P. Chidambaram, known for his investment sense, may have used this means earlier. Though I have heard conflicting reports that state branches of parties in South using similar means since 1998-99.
6. While earlier efforts benefitted from a global bull market, current efforts require ingenuity to create returns in an adverse global macro environment. 
7. I hear that ruling party has taken an ingenious approach to current problem. The first phase of the strategy is to create policy misdirection, increase rhetoric and in general cause panic and injure investor sentiment (only enough to create a equity market). The second phase is to establish policy direction and build credible reform base that should lead to uptick in equity markets.
8. The magnitude of money involved is not small. Even small district magistrates have wealth in excess of INR 50 million. Politicians have access to money in excess of INR 200 million each. There are tons of them. However, substantial amount of this money is in black (cash not accounted or declared) and thus cannot be funneled into the equity markets. However, the numbers are mind-boggling.

Thus, I expect:

1. Reform process to gather steam from current levels.
2. Increasingly positive policy news of reform and clarity coming from governments.
3. In general improving investment climate.
4. Proactive and improved response from government to cushion or even counter negative news coming from global economies.
5. Government may talk the market up.

Implication for Equities:

1. I believe this current level is a bottom for next year or more.
2. From this point we will move up is a sustained manner till beyond March of next year (around).
3. At that point we may see a sharp correction as money starts being pulled out of the markets.
4. So, this is time to be long India and get out by March next year.
5. Risk is that if all start working on the same strategy exit needs to be critically examined.

---

My book "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" is available on Amazon and Kindle.